Sutherland - Grade: 12 PDF

Preview

Summary

none...

Description

Encyclopedia of Criminological Theory Sutherland, Edwin H.: Differential Association Theory and Differential Social Organization

Contributors: Ross L. Matsueda Editors: Francis T. Cullen & Pamela Wilcox Book Title: Encyclopedia of Criminological Theory Chapter Title: "Sutherland, Edwin H.: Differential Association Theory and Differential Social Organization" Pub. Date: 2010 Access Date: September 12, 2014 Publishing Company: SAGE Publications, Inc.

City: Thousand Oaks Print ISBN: 9781412959186 Online ISBN: 9781412959193 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412959193.n250 Print pages: 899-907 ©2010 SAGE Publications, Inc. All Rights Reserved. This PDF has been generated from SAGE knowledge. Please note that the pagination of the online version will vary from the pagination of the print book.

SAGE ©2010 SAGE Publications, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

SAGE knowledge

http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412959193.n250 Edwin Sutherland's development of differential association theory in 1947 marked a watershed in criminology. The theory, which dominated the discipline for decades, brought Chicago-style sociology to the forefront of criminology. It is well known that differential association explains individual criminality with a social psychological process of learning crime within interaction with social groups. Less well known is Sutherland's attempt to explain aggregate crime rates across groups and societies. Here, he specified the theory of differential social organization to explain rates of crime with an organizational process that implies group dynamics. This entry reviews Sutherland's theory of differential association, discusses attempts at revision, and assesses the empirical status of the theory. It also examines recent attempts to revisit and elaborate the concept of differential social organization as well as current areas of research in which it is being used.

Differential Association Theory Sutherland stated differential association theory as a set of nine propositions, which introduced three concepts—normative conflict, differential association, and differential group organization—that explain crime at the levels of the society, the individual, and the group. This section discusses relationships among these concepts, drawing from Ross L. Matsueda's “The Current State of Differential Association Theory.”

Normative Conflict: The Root Cause of Crime in Society At the societal level, crime is rooted in normative conflict. For Sutherland, primitive, undifferentiated societies are characterized by harmony, solidarity, and consensus over basic values and beliefs. Such societies have little conflict over appropriate behaviors and, consequently, little crime. With the industrial revolution, however, societies developed advanced divisions of labor, market economies, and a breakdown in consensus. Such societies become segmented into groups that conflict over interests, values, and behavior patterns. These societies are characterized by specialization Page 3 of 19

Encyclopedia of Criminological Theory: Sutherland, Edwin H.: Differential Association Theory and Differential Social Organization

SAGE ©2010 SAGE Publications, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

SAGE knowledge

rather than similarity, coercion rather than harmony, conflict rather than consensus. They tend to have high rates of crime. Sutherland hypothesized that high crime rates are associated with normative conflict, which he defined as a society segmented into groups that conflict over the appropriateness of the law: some groups define the law as a set of rules to be followed under all circumstances, while others define the law as a set of rules to be violated under certain circumstances. Therefore, when normative conflict is absent in a society, crime rates will be low; when normative conflict is high, societal crime rates will be high. In this way, crime is ultimately rooted in normative conflict, according to Sutherland and Donald Cressey.

Differential Association Process: Explanation of Individual Criminal Acts At the level of the individual, the process of differential association provides a social psychological [p. 899 ↓ ] explanation of how normative conflict in society translates into individual criminal acts. Accordingly, criminal behavior is learned in a process of communication in intimate groups. The content of learning includes two important elements. First are the requisite skills and techniques for committing crime, which can range from complicated, specialized skills of computer fraud, insider trading, and confidence games, to the simple, readily available skills of assault, purse snatching, and drunk driving. Such techniques are necessary but insufficient to produce crime. Second are definitions favorable and unfavorable to crime, which consist of motives, verbalizations, or rationalizations that make crime justified or unjustified, and include Gresham Sykes and David Matza's techniques of neutralization. For example, definitions favorable to income tax fraud include “Everyone cheats on their taxes” and “The government has no right to tax its citizens.” Definitions favorable to drunk driving include “I can drive fine after a few beers” and “I only have a couple of miles to drive home.” Definitions favorable to violence include “If your manhood is threatened, you have to fight back” and “To maintain respect, you can never back down from a fight.” These definitions favorable to crime help organize and justify a criminal line of action in a particular situation. They are offset by definitions unfavorable to crime, such as “Tax fraud deprives Americans of important programs that benefit the commonwealth,” “All Page 4 of 19

Encyclopedia of Criminological Theory: Sutherland, Edwin H.: Differential Association Theory and Differential Social Organization

SAGE ©2010 SAGE Publications, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

SAGE knowledge

fraud and theft is immoral,” “If insulted, turn the other cheek,” “Friends don't let friends drink and drive,” and “Any violation of the law is wrong.” These examples illustrate several points about definitions of crime. First, some definitions pertain to specific offenses only, such as “Friends don't let friends drink and drive,” whereas others refer to a class of offenses, such as “All fraud and theft is immoral,” and others refer to virtually all law violation, such as “Any violation of the law is wrong.” Second, each definition serves to justify or motivate either committing criminal acts or refraining from criminal acts. Third, these definitions are not merely ex-post facto rationalizations of crime but rather operate to cause criminal behavior. Sutherland recognized that definitions favorable to crime can be offset by definitions unfavorable to crime and, therefore, hypothesized that criminal behavior is determined by the ratio of definitions favorable to crime versus unfavorable to crime. Furthermore, he recognized that definitions are not all equal. Definitions that are presented more frequently, for a longer duration, earlier in one's life, and in more intense relationships receive more weight in the process producing crime. The individual-level hypothesis of differential association theory can now be stated. According to Matsueda, a person will engage in criminal behavior if the following three conditions are met: • • •

1. The person has learned the requisite skills and techniques for committing crime. 2. The person has learned an excess of definitions favorable to crime over unfavorable to crime. 3. The person has the objective opportunity to carry out the crime.

According to Sutherland, if all three conditions are present and crime does not occur, or a crime occurs in the absence of all three conditions, the theory would be wrong and in need of revision. Thus, in principle, the theory is falsifiable. The process of differential association with definitions favorable and unfavorable to crime is structured by the broader social organization in which individuals are embedded. This includes the structures and organization of families, neighborhoods,

Page 5 of 19

Encyclopedia of Criminological Theory: Sutherland, Edwin H.: Differential Association Theory and Differential Social Organization

SAGE ©2010 SAGE Publications, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

SAGE knowledge

schools, and labor markets. This organization is captured by the concept of differential social organization.

Differential Social Organization Explanation of Group Rates of Crime At the level of the group, differential social organization provides an organizational explanation of how normative conflict in society translates into specific group rates of crime. According to differential social organization, the crime rate of a group is determined by the extent to which that group is organized against crime versus organized in favor of crime. In industrialized societies, the two forms of organization exist side by side—and indeed are sometimes interwoven in complex ways, such as when police take bribes and participate in organized extortion, or baseball players take steroids in full view of teammates. Sutherland hypothesized that the relative strength of organization in favor of crime versus organization [p. 900 ↓ ] against crime explains the crime rate of any group or society. Thus, compared to suburban neighborhoods, innercity neighborhoods are weakly organized against street crimes and strongly organized in favor of such crimes. Compared to other groups, the Mafia is strongly organized in favor of crime and weakly organized against crime. Compared to the United States, Japan is strongly organized against crime and weakly organized in favor of crime. Moreover, the group-level process of differential social organization is linked to the individual-level process of differential association. Groups that are strongly organized in favor of crime display numerous and intense definitions favorable to crime. Conversely, groups that are strongly organized against crime display numerous and intense definitions unfavorable to crime. Matsueda suggests that it follows that differential social organization explains group crimes rate by influencing the availability of definitions favorable and unfavorable to crime within the group. When groups are strongly organized in favor of crime and weakly organized against crime, they will present an abundance of definitions favorable to crime and few definitions unfavorable to crime. Individuals in such groups have a high probability of learning an excess of definitions of crime. Whether they do, depends on their actual learning. Even in high crime communities, some residents are isolated from the abundant criminal definitions Page 6 of 19

Encyclopedia of Criminological Theory: Sutherland, Edwin H.: Differential Association Theory and Differential Social Organization

SAGE ©2010 SAGE Publications, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

SAGE knowledge

and exposed to the few anti-criminal definitions in the community. Those residents will refrain from crime because of an excess of definitions unfavorable to crime. The opposite also holds. In low-crime communities, some residents are exposed to the few criminal definitions in the community, and isolated from the abundant anti-criminal definitions. Given the opportunity and skills, they will engage in crime because of an excess of definitions favorable to crime.

Extensions and Empirical Tests of Differential Association Extensions Although the core features of differential association theory have persisted to the present, the theory has undergone several modifications and extensions. Early attempts to modify the theory specified hypotheses of differential identification, in which individuals identify with either criminals or non-criminals, and differential anticipation, in which individuals anticipate the consequences of delinquent or nondelinquent behavior. Perhaps the most elaborate revision is associated with Ronald Akers, who incorporated social learning principles into the theory, which posits that crime is initially learned through direct imitation or modeling. Then, the probability of continuing criminal behavior is determined by differential reinforcement, the relative rewards and punishments following the act. Reinforcement can be direct or vicarious, whereby simply observing another's criminal behavior being reinforced will reinforce one's own criminal behavior. Definitions of crime are learned through this process and affect behavior directly, as well as indirectly by serving as cues (discriminative stimuli) for law violation. A more recent extension of differential association theory, proposed by Karen Heimer and Matsueda in 1994, incorporates the symbolic interactionist concept of taking the role of the other as a link between group control, cognition, and behavior. Here, taking the role of significant others and considering delinquency from the standpoint of others Page 7 of 19

Encyclopedia of Criminological Theory: Sutherland, Edwin H.: Differential Association Theory and Differential Social Organization

SAGE ©2010 SAGE Publications, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

SAGE knowledge

is a cognitive process by which anticipated reactions of others, reflected appraisals of self from the standpoint of others (the looking-glass self), and delinquent peer associations (along with habits) lead to future delinquency. Such processes produce group social control of both delinquent and nondelinquent acts; delinquency is a result of differential social control, the relative strength of conventional versus delinquent group controls. Differential social control specifies specific mechanisms by which groups control the behavior of members, while retaining Sutherland's emphasis on the learning of delinquency and the importance of definitions of law violation.

Empirical Tests Empirical studies of differential association generally use self-report surveys of adolescents and young adults. A key issue is how to measure an excess of definitions favorable to crime, a prerequisite for testing the theory. Long ago, Matsueda argued that if definitions of law violation can be viewed as a single continuum, they can be treated as a latent variable with operational implications for fallible survey measures of definitions. This strategy [p. 901 ↓ ] found that definitions of delinquency mediated effects of parent and peer attachment on delinquent behavior, and therefore that differential association is supported over social control theories for non-black (Matsueda, 1982) and black youths (Matsueda & Heimer, 1987). Panel studies have also supported the hypothesis that definitions are causally linked to delinquency and violence for males and females (Heimer & DeCoster, 1999) and that techniques for monetary crimes are important (McCarthy, 1996). Empirical research has also found some support for the hypothesis that differential reinforcement adds explanatory power in models of delinquency. The concepts of imitation and anticipated social rewards from crime appear to add to the explanation of delinquency. Finally, recent research suggests that delinquent peer association has a smaller effect on delinquency when estimated longitudinally, when disentangling peer selection from peer effects, and when measuring delinquent peers from the peers themselves. Dana Haynie has linked differential association to social network theory and found that network density and centrality of delinquent peer groups are key predictors of delinquency. In sum, most empirical research finds general support for differential association and social learning theories. Page 8 of 19

Encyclopedia of Criminological Theory: Sutherland, Edwin H.: Differential Association Theory and Differential Social Organization

SAGE ©2010 SAGE Publications, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

SAGE knowledge

Specifying Theoretical Mechanisms for Differential Social Organization Sutherland spent considerable time refining his individual-level theory of differential association, but devoted less time to his more sociological theory of differential social organization, which consequently never progressed beyond its original rudimentary form. In 2006, Matsueda tried to resurrect the concept of differential social organization, pointing to a little-known chapter Sutherland wrote on wartime crime—in which he identifies a number of mechanisms by which social organization may affect crime rates during war—and developing the dynamic collective action implications of the theory. This discussion draws from that work. The concept of differential social organization, like social organization more generally, can be separated into two analytically distinct forms. From the standpoint of a snapshot or cross-section, social organization consists of structures, including social network ties, norms and sanctions, consensus versus conflict, and access to resources. Here, the extent to which those structures are used for crime versus used to combat crime determines the instantaneous distribution of crime. From the standpoint of a dynamic process over time, social organization consists of collective action, social change, and the process by which consensus and conflict are built up. The latter process has been largely ignored in the criminology literature on social organization and crime. Nevertheless, the role of collective action can be inferred from Sutherland's own words, when he wrote that organization against crime and in favor of crime consist of two principal elements: “consensus in regard to objectives and in implementation for the realization of objectives” ([1943]1973, p. 126). In other words, such organization is the result of collective action, and it entails building consensus over a problematic situation and then translating that consensus into action.

The Structure of Social Network Ties If we first consider differential social organization cross-sectionally, a key element is the structure of network ties. James Coleman argued that closed network structures Page 9 of 19

Encyclopedia of Criminological Theory: Sutherland, Edwin H.: Differential Association Theory and Differential Social Organization

SAGE ©2010 SAGE Publications, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

SAGE knowledge

enable greater social capital and social control. Imagine a diagram of a triangle, with points A, B, and C at each corner. In this diagram of an open structure, points A and B are linked by a line (or side) to C, but not connected to each other. This would be like a triangle in which two sides are connected but not the third. In this situation, A and B can independently and additively influence C by using individual sanctions, developing trust, establishing norms, using moral persuasion, and the like. But they cannot engage in joint behavior because they lack social ties. Now imagine another figure in which all sides of a triangle are connected. In this diagram of a closed structure, points A and B are linked not only to C but also to each other. As a result, they not only can influence C independently, but—because they interact with each other—can jointly (multiplicatively) influence C by developing coordinated strategies, simultaneous sanctions, similar rhetorical arguments, and the like. Coleman gives a second example of parents and children. In an open structure, the two children are friends but their parents do not know one another. In a closed structure, not only do the children know one another but the parents are [p. 902 ↓ ] also friends. In the open structure, the parent can only influence their own child's behavior. But in the closed structure, because the parents know one another, they can now work collectively to control or influence all the children. Thus, they can monitor each others’ children, call each other, and coordinate their punitive strategies, rhetorical arguments, and so on. Robert Sampson, Stephen Raudenbush, and Felton Earls find support for the...